Clarification (Part 1): When the Gemara in the first Perek of Zevachim (Daf 114.) asks that Muktzah and Ne'evad do not belong to him, and a person cannot render something forbidden that is not his?', and answers by establishing it by Kodshim Kalim ...

Clarification (Part 2): That is according to Rav Huna above, since according to the Amora'im here one could even establish it by a Chatas, which is considered his.

Clarification (Part 1): It seems here that Rav Huna and Ula above (Daf 40.) forbid it even to a Hedyot, since the case here of 'Shenayim Ochzin' and that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira that will be mentioned shortly are talking about a Hedyot, and it is implied that according to them there is no Kashya.

Clarification (Part 2): Consequently, the proof that the Gemara now brings from Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 54:) for Ula from vessels that King Achaz used to serve Avodah-Zarah, about which Mar said 'They prepared them and sanctified others in their place', means that they were forbidden even to a Hedyot.

Sugya in Avodah-Zarah (Part 1): In the Gemara there earlier in the Perek (Daf 52:) Rebbi Yossi ben Shaul asked Rebbi what the Din will be regarding Keilim that were used in Beis Chonyo. He was not asking according to those who held that Beis Chonyo was an Avodah-Zarah, he explained, since now that it was Asur to a Hedyot ...

Sugya in Avodah-Zarah (Part 2): The Gemara concludes that they are Asur, and it Darshens it from the Pasuk "Heichan'num" - 'she'Ganzum'.

Question: What is not the proof from there, seeing as the Keilim that Achaz used to serve Avodah-Zarah were forbidden even to a Hedyot, whereas those of Beis Chonyo were permitted to a Hedyot, according to those who hold that it was not an Avodah-Zarah?

Answer: The Pasuk of "Kol ha'Keilim ... ("Heichan'num ... ") is certainly confined to Gavohah. And the Gemara's proof from there for Ula is that - since it was Asur even though Achaz merely used them for Avodah-Zarah without effecting any change on them, there where one performed a proper act on them (such as where he began to Shecht the animal), we can assume that there, it is Asur even to a Hedyot as well.

Clarification: The Gemara asks according to the opinion in Gitin that 'Menasech' is meant literally.

Question (Part 1): How can the Gemara then answer that it speaks where he has a partnership in it, bearing in mind that the Gemara says there that according to those who learn Menasech literally, it could not have said 'Me'arev', since that would be the same as 'Medame'.

Question (Part 2): Now, seeing as we just established it where he has a partnership in it, and his friend's portion does not become forbidden only because it is mixed together with his own, the Kashya remains, that this is 'Medame'?

Answer (Part 1): It nevertheless comes to teach us that even though he is Chayav Misah, we do not apply the principle 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih', as the Gemara explains there.

Answer (Part 2): And had the Tana not added 'Medamei', we would have thought that for a small amount one is not Chayav.

Question (Part 1): The Gemara implies here that, according to Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira, one is permitted to sell the wine to any Nochri that one chooses, seeing as one person cannot render forbidden what is not his ...

Question (Part 2): Whereas in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 59:, see there Tosfos DH 'Amar') it implies that he is only permitted to sell it to the Nochri who rendered it Nesech ...

Question (Part 3): Since the Gemara there, brings a proof from there in support of the case there where a Nochri poured wine belonging to a Yisrael, where it rules that even though he is not permitted to derive benefit from it, he is permitted to take money from the Nochri who rendered it Yayin Nesech, because it is considered as if he had burned it?

Answer: The proof there is that since Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira permits selling the wine to any Nochri that he pleases, the Rabbanan will at least permit selling it to the Nochri who rendered it Yayin Nesech.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara might just as well have established it where he had a share in it, like it did earlier.

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara subsequently repeat the Kashyos that it already answered before?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that even if he has a share in it, one can still say that he does it in order to cause him pain (and not in order to worship it).

Clarification: According to these Amora'im, the Gemara could have said in Perek ha'Nizakin (Gitin 52:) that 'Menasech' means that he touched it'.

Clarification: Rabeinu Tam explains that this refers to a clean pit, because it then appears as if he is receiving the blood on behalf of Avodas-Kochavim.

Question: In that case, without making a space outside the pit, there is a Takanah of cleaning the Chatzer.

Conclusion: One should therefore take care not to Shecht even into a pit that is not clean.

Implied Question: Even though Rav says in Shabbos (Daf 64.) that ' 'Wherever the Chachamim declared something Asur on account of Mar'is ha'Ayin it is forbidden even in a room within a room' ...

Answer (Part 1): That is restricted to cases such as 'spreading out clothes to dry, but not in front of the people', where, if they saw him doing it in secret, they would suspect him, just as they would if he did it in the street ...

Answer (Part 2): Which is not the case here, where if they saw him doing it in his house, they would say that he was doing it in order to clean his Chatzer.

Yerushalmi: The Yerushalmi however, maintains that this Mishnah disagrees with Rav from there.

Bavli: It appears however, that the Bavli does not concur with the Yerushalmi in this point ...

Source: Since it does not query Rav from the Mishnah, as it does in Perek Bameh Ishah (Shabbos 64. & :) from the case of 'the bell around the animal's neck', and answer 'Tana'i Hi!'

Yerushalmi: And with regard to all those cases from which it queries Rav in the first Perek of Avodah-Zarah (12.) (e.g. 'Someone whose money scattered in front of an idol', and 'If a splinter settled in somebody's foot' and answers, the Yerushalmi holds that they disagree with Rav.

Final Point: And in the case in Perek Af-al-Pi (Kesuvos 60.) regarding a pipe into which rubbish entered, where he is permitted to discreetly squash the rubbish with his foot on Shabbos without compunction, there too, Rav will concede that 'Chashad' does not apply ...

Reason: Since min ha'Torah, it is permitted Lechatchilah to do so.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that he is not concerned about Mar'is ha'Ayin.

Explanation #2 (Part 1): According to the Riva however, Mar'is ha'Ayin does not apply according to Rebbi Shimon, as it is similar to someone who declares Hekdesh with the intention of Shechting outside (the Azarah).

Explanation #2 (Part 2): And he follows his own reasoning in Perek Harei Alai Isaron (Menachos 109.) where, in response to the the Tana Kama's ruling - 'Harei Alai Olah al-M'nas she'Akrivenah be'Beis Chonyo, Yakrivenah be'Beis-ha'Mikdash', he rules 'Ein Zeh Olah!'

Reason: Because he did not designate in the way that one normally designates.

Source: As we learned in the Mishnah in Perek ha'Menachos ve'ha'Nesachim (Ibid. 103.) 'Harei Alai Minchah Lehavi min ha'Se'orin ... Rebbi Shimon Poter, she'Lo Hisnadev ke'Derech ha'Misnadvim (because this is not the way one donates)'.

Proof: In fact, the Tosefta, explaining the current case, says explicitly that Rebbi Shimon declares it Kasher because cases of this nature cannot be donated. Rebbi Shimon said 'And if someone said "I am going to bring an Olah in order to Shecht it on the other side (the East Bank) of the Jordan River", would it be an Olah?'

Clarification: As long as he did not 'le'Shem Chatas!', he has said nothing - even if he says 'This is my Chatas!', as we learned in the first Perek of Nedarim (Daf 6.).

Clarification (Part 1): Earlier, we did not suspect that he may have a secret Korban in his house ...

Clarification (Part 2): Because there it is speaking where he is known to publicize whenever he has, in order to avoid transgressing Me'ilah.

Question: Rashi asks that if he does not have a wife, why do we need 'Zeh ha'Kelal' (to preclude an Olas Yoledes); Is it not obvious that we have nothing to worry about?

Answer (Part 1): We can answer by explaining that 'Ein Lo Ishah' means (not that we know that he does not have a wife, but) that we do not know whether he has a wife or not. And the same applies to ;Ein Lo Zevach' that we learned earlier.

Answer (Part 2): But there where we know for sure that he does not does not need to be precluded.